AFTERMATH – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  The second presidential debate of 2012 is history.  There's a general consensus that Obama won on points, but not by much, that his performance was considerably improved over his first outing several weeks ago, and that Mitt Romney, while very effective in several segments, did not equal the commanding spark he displayed at the first debate.

We have given great praise here to Romney's preparation for the first debate.  Our praise is more muted this time.  Romney gave signs of overconfidence.  He didn't have facts organized well in his head, as he did at the first debate.  More important, he didn't have lines ready, memorized, to be delivered at critical moments.  By common consent he blew the opportunity to slam Obama over Libya, allowing Obama to win that segment.  He seemed to have a bit less energy than Obama, who came alive in a townhall format that favored his folksy, utterly phony style.  Karl Rove pointed out that Romney also made a classic error – asking Obama questions when the format didn't require it.  You never do that in a debate.  It allows your opponent to frame the issue his way.

And yet, Romney made many excellent points, noting, for example, that Obama has a record, and that the record is awful. 

We got the best Obama last night – fibs and all – but we got the A- Romney.  The instant polls confirm that view.  But I really doubt that many minds were changed in the audience.  Obama landed no knockout blows.  Romney made enough solid points to present himself as a credible alternative to a failed administration.

We will watch the numbers in the coming days.  As we've said here before, the only important thing about a presidential debate is who wins.  They are not uplifting events, and we never learn much.

October 17,  2012